|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
The Impact of Consensus-Orientation on Legitimacy Ratings
|
After
How Voting Rules Impact Legitimacy
|
|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
completed
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Rendering decision-making procedures more legitimate in the eyes of citizens is crucial: High ratings of legitimacy build the basis for a functioning democracy and citizens' wilful compliance with regulations.
Experimental studies have shown—amongst others—deliberation, participation, and consensus-orientation to increase legitimacy ratings.
In this study, we chose to experimentally manipulate consensus orientation by introducing several voting mechanisms (IV) to quantify the impact on legitimacy (DV).
Legitimacy is measured via self-report: Participants provide legitimacy ratings after voting upon choice options within two different contexts, as well as after observing the poll's outcome (within-subjects design).
The experiment will be conducted online, deploying an Android-based app that was specifically designed for this purpose.
|
After
Collective action is essential for addressing the grand challenges of our time. However, for such action to be successful, decision-making processes must be perceived as legitimate. In this study, we investigate the legitimacy of different voting methods.
Using a pre-registered human subject experiment, 120 participants cast their votes using four voting methods: majority voting, combined approval voting, score voting and modified Borda count. These methods represent a range of preference elicitation designs, from low to high complexity and flexibility.
Furthermore, we developed a legitimacy scale upon which the participants rate the voting methods.
The experiment was conducted in a non-political setting (voting on colour preferences) and a political context (voting on COVID-19-related questions).
Our findings suggest that the perceived legitimacy of a voting method is context-dependent. Specifically, preferential voting methods are considered more legitimate than majority voting in political decision-making, but only for individuals with well-defined preferences.
Furthermore, preferential voting methods are more legitimate than majority voting in a highly polarized situation.
|
|
Field
JEL Code(s)
|
Before
D72
|
After
D70, D71
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
June 25, 2021 01:41 PM
|
After
January 26, 2024 08:16 AM
|
|
Field
Study Withdrawn
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Intervention Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
July 31, 2021
|
|
Field
Data Collection Complete
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
|
Before
|
After
120
|
|
Field
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
|
Before
|
After
120
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
|
Before
|
After
120
|
|
Field
Public Data URL
|
Before
|
After
https://github.com/carinahausladen/LegitimacyVotingMethod
|
|
Field
Is there a restricted access data set available on request?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Program Files
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Program Files URL
|
Before
|
After
https://github.com/carinahausladen/LegitimacyVotingMethod
|
|
Field
Data Collection Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
July 31, 2021
|
|
Field
Is data available for public use?
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
legitimacy, voting mechanism, consensus-orientation
|
After
Social choice theory, Democracy, Legitimacy, Voting rules, Human subject experiment, COVID-19
|
|
Field
Pi as first author
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|